38/44 vs. 357 Magnum

[MakeMyNight]

My 38/44 Super Police has more than 1/8 left in the cylinder when loaded...Does this mean if a .357 WILL fit into the cylinder, that it can handle the pressure of the Magnum load?
I am just curious, I have not yet purchased .357 to test this theory, but if a .357 is only 1/8 inch longer than current .38 loads....I think I have the room for it. Everything else about this gun seems modified...I wonder if it was modified to accommodate a .357 load.

FWIW: You can hand load a 38 special to such a respectable performance level that I wouldn't bother with trying to cram .357 magnum rounds into those 38 chambers.

Also, Elmer Keith published loading data using 2400 as a propellant, and some of those 38 spl loads are near .357 performance. Of course, it's wise to only use a revolver built strong enough to handle hot hand loads.

 

[RKmesa]

"Conversion"

My understanding is that "in the early days" when 357 magnum revolvers were hard to come by, that there were quite a few 38/44 revolver cylinders that were reamed out to load the 357 magnum cartridge. Some of them were stamped as such on the barrels by their reamers, while others were just reamed with no mark as to the modification. I purchased a Transitional Heavy Duty that had been reamed and stamped "357" on the side of the barrel. However, I do not plan to shoot anything but 38 Specials out of the gun and I would recommend the same to others who own reamed 38/44's. And I cannot see why anyone would incur the cost to ream a 38/44 in this current market, where 357 revolvers of all varieties are plentiful, easy to find and relatively reasonably priced.

In my younger years (not that I am old), I got a thrill out of shooting powerful/punishing loads. However, the older I get, I find that I rarely shoot anything but 38's out of my 357's. I find myself shooting for pleasure and accuracy, not to show myself or others how much punishment that I can handle. Then again, maybe I never was the macho dude that I thought that I was...

 

[Dnovo1]

Amen, Brother Richard. At 63 and a shooter since single digits, I still touch off a big honker from time to time (such as a Reeder 510 or a 50AE Bowen built for me) but a 44 Special in one of my 44mags or 38 Specials in a 357 is much more my current taste. At my age, it is been there, done that, don't remember. Dave

 

[delta-419]

I too, own a post war nickled 38/44 that was reamed out for .357 mag loads. It was so marked with an electric pencile but is in a way that you don't reallly notice it or maybe the nickle was placed over it. It is a renickled gun. I shoot standard 158 gr .38s in it. I love the heavy feel of this old shooter and it shoots to POA. Great guns and I have managed to find a few of these old shooters.

 

[ElmerKeith]

.38-44 HV: The Original Magnum - revolver round - page 2 | Guns Magazine Here is an article by Chuck Taylor that talks about the difference. Sounds like the .38/44 loads were getting hot so they lengthend the case for safety reasons. Keep folks from loading up a hot round in an old M&P

Unfortunately this article is no longer available on the internet. Does anyone have this as a pdf-document?

Thank you.

 

[Cerberus62]

Unfortunately this article is no longer available on the internet. Does anyone have this as a pdf-document?

Thank you.

Not a PDF, but here's a link:

.38-44 HV: The Original Magnum. - Free Online Library

 

[Nedroe]

This One......

Has been reamed to accept .357 magnum ammo prior to my purchasing it. Actually, many years ago, as it was the thing to do. I paid handsomely for it as it is all numbers matching, but about $400 less than if it had been un-modified. The reason I bought it was because it HAD been modified.

To my knowledge there is no different heat treatment between these & the RM's The only ones that got different treatment were the 44 & 41 mags. I got no problem shootin' magnum's outta this one. I wouldn't do it out of a modified m15. The hiilbillies don't realize the m19 has a beefier crane on it.

 

[ElmerKeith]

Not a PDF, but here's a link:

.38-44 HV: The Original Magnum. - Free Online Library

Thank you!!!

 

[crofoot629]

The cylinders on the post war 38/44's are plenty hard enough (Rockwell Tested), and thick enough to ream to .357 Magnum. Post War 38/44's reamed to .357 are stronger than Pre War Registered Magnums. Which have relatively softer steel.

Emory

S&W has always made it clear that a special chrome-nickel (their phrasing) steel was used in .357's, and they also had additional heat treatment.

I am rather concerned that this thread may lead some to bore out a .38-44 and regret it. Moreover, they'd ruin a collector's gun. Just buy a .357 or sell the .38-44 to a collector and get one.

Of all places, I'd have thought that this board would be full of members who'd know better than to re-chamber a .38.

Modern 158 grain .357 JHP ammo often beats 1,200 FPS in a four-inch revolver barrel. I'm almost sure that those 1510 and 1550 FPS loads were obtained in pressure barrels of a bit over eight inches. That probably also applied to 1450 FPS postwar ammo.

Recent .357 ammo is loaded lighter because of K-frame Magnums, not J-frames, which are Johnny-come-latelys in .357.

T-Star

 

[GLL]

I feel T-Star's concern is possibly misplaced. All of the .38/44s I own or have seen that were converted were post-war transitional models. My gut feeling is that the conversions took place in the 1940s or early 50s !
Does anyone own a post 1950 .38/44 that has been converted to .357Magnum?
I would certainly doubt members of this Forum would consider doing it now. The guns are simply worth too much "as is" and recent .357 models are relatively "cheap" (inexpensive)!

Jerry

 

[David LaPell]

In the last two or three years I have been doing a lot on the .38-44's especially in the Outdoorsman and have dug up every piece of data that I could on them. One of the best articles was the October 2006 article on the .38-44 in Handloader magazine by Brian Pearce. Brian wrote this of the comparison between the .357 and the .38-44's.
"The magnum did feature countersunk chambers, which was a part of the factory high-grade custom package, with no expense being spared. Technically speaking, however, countersunk chambers did not add strength and did any of the magnum's custom features. Likewise the frames of both guns were equally strong. The point being, the strength of the .357 Magnum revolvers and the .38-44 handguns were effectively identical."

I have been working for the last year or so on different loads for my Outdoorsman and I can tell you this gun has taken everything I have thrown at it. My favorite two loads are the 170 grain cast #358429 bullet and 12.5 grains of 2400 in .38 Special +P brass. I ran this load through my chronograph at over 1,200 fps and the other load is a #358156 HP again with 12.5 grains of 2400 at around 1,250 fps. According to the October 2006 article these loads aren't even close to the max for these guns but they are both very accurate even out to 65 yards one handed on shooting sticks. I had thought about buying another .357 Magnum long barrel but this gun meets all my needs.

Here is some more reading on the .38-44.

http://www.guns.com/38-44-outdoorsman-a-handgun-for-hunting-deer-and-rum-runners-433.html

 

[j38]

I picked up an Outdoorsman some years ago that shipped in 1954 and which had been later converted to .357. I only found this out a couple of years ago when I tried a sample .357 round in all my 38/44's - just to check.

Jerry

 

[GLL]

j38:

Thank you for the information on your 1954!

Jerry

 

[BigBill]

OT; Today if i was just getting into revolvers like i did in 1975 I would of skipped over the 357mag and purchased the S&W N frame in 41mag. If i knew then what i know now. Being a 44mag guys for most of my handgun life I just shot my newly purchased S&W M58 in 41mag and its a dream to shoot. Its hotter than my hottest 357mag reload yet handles better than my 44mag. I say this because back in my early days i had no one to tell me about the 41mag. Everyone pushed the 44mag because of dirty harry.

 

[A10]

Thanks for the link, Dave! It was a fascinating read. I am becoming more and more enamoured with the Outdoorsman and its capabilities. I have a 6 1/2" 1956ish Heavy Duty, and I'm thinking it needs a companion piece. Of course, I should probably go with a 1932 model as well, to go along with my 5" Heavy Duty from that time.....this place is going to break me yet!

 

[RKmesa]

Great Thread!!!

I'm glad this one got resurrected. These 38/44 OD's are great guns. As this thread is packed with great info and links to great articles, I thought it could use a copy of the Outdoorsman brochure, so here you go:

... And a couple of photos of my latest OD - recently re-connected with a vintage box.

Thanks for letting me share.